Do 24th century Federation (Earth) citizens have the right to bear arms?

[at Quark's]

Do Federation (Earth) citizens have the right to bear arms?

Disclaimer: I know this might be a contentious issue, and therefore I would like to ask you to not bring your personal insights on the contemporary issue into this ('Any civilized / freedom -loving society such as the Federation surely would do x!'), but restrict it to on-screen evidence.

The only direct evidence that comes to my mind right now is the farmer that shoots the Klingon in Broken Bow. But, that's 2151, not 2370, on an earth where not all issues have quite been resolved yet. I think we also have several episodes where a non-starfleet member takes up a phaser for whatever reason- but usually that's still in a 'militarised' environment, such as on a spaceship, or a space station. and usually those people might reasonably be expected to have other authorisation to do so (Major Kira or Odo, for example).

But would, say, Joseph Sisko, have a phaser near his bed (or be allowed to have one) just in case he thought he heard some suspicious noises during the night ? (Never mind that criminal behaviour is supposed to be nonexistent on Federation Earth)

 

[C.E. Evans]

IMO, you can fairly easily have a phaser if you want. They're not like 21st-Century barbarians though, so the need for many to have one for self-defense is probably not that great except on frontier worlds and facilities where Starfleet's presence is limited or even zero.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I wouldn't be surprised if like today, it's down to individual states or whatever the future equivalent is. I imagine they'd be far more skittish about someone walking around San Francisco than they would bumfuck nowhere where that Klingon was shot. But then again, it's a world where Starfleet (who seem to be the police in the 24th century going by DS9) can beam in anywhere at 3 seconds notice.

Also people can 3D print a deadly weapon today, I'm sure there are ways to replicate one 300 years hence.

 

[NCC-73515]

Since phasers can disintegrate entire crowds and buildings, I guess civilians only get one with the first 3 settings or so

 

[Xhiandra]

Do Federation (Earth) citizens have the right to bear arms?

Disclaimer: I know this might be a contentious issue, and therefore I would like to ask you to not bring your personal insights on the contemporary issue into this ('Any civilized / freedom -loving society such as the Federation surely would do x!'), but restrict it to on-screen evidence.

And yet, you phrased it as "the right to bear arms", a very American and pro-gun framing.

 

[ananta]

My question would be, why would they need to?

 

[at Quark's]

And yet, you phrased it as "the right to bear arms", a very American and pro-gun framing.

Well, I'm not American, English is not my native language, and personally (I have to break my own request in the opening post briefly here) I'm not at all for citizens carrying guns. But it seemed like a natural way of putting it -keeping in mind that this is an American series after all.

However, my apologies if I stumbled on some toes here , and please read it as 'Are 24th century Earth citizens allowed to carry arms', or any phrasing that would be neutral in tone to you.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I just remembered Picard had

Spoiler: Picard season one

disruptors hidden beneath his desk at his mansion in ST: Picard. And needed them when that Romulan death squad came.

My question would be, why would they need to?

Do people need to today? Will people need to in a future where ships full of hostiles can fall from the sky, or beam right into your home?

I struggle with the concept of flying cars in Trek's world. We have enough incidents today, let alone having cars randomly smash into your bedroom on floor #296 of the San Francisco arcology, or drop onto your head when you're out taking a stroll.

 

[valkyrie013]

Well, with the ability to have weapons that only have a Stun setting, Id say on Earth that you would have the abiltiy to have a phaser or other type of weapon, that has a permenat stun setting, for home use more than likely, I doubt that you could Open Carry a phaser on the streets of San Franscico.. but I'd think that there would still be some way to protect yourself.

Now, on other planets, say a colony, then the rules change because you have hostile native animals.. maybe native plants.. and open carry may be okay.
As for Replicating one.. there are probably restrictions on the replicators... a lockout for normal citizens.

So Yes, there would still be some type of "Right to bear arms" in the future, but limited.
As for hidden weapons.. like today, there would be illegal weapons around.. There would still be some type of crime element as well.

 

[Christopher]

Well... the modern understanding of the phrase "right to bear arms" is greatly distorted, due to shifts in language and deliberate propagandistic misinterpretations. The Second Amendment specifically says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

First off, in formal usage, the phrase "the people" -- note the definite article -- does not refer to individual persons, but to the populace as a whole, the collective citizenry, as in "We the People of the United States." Second, "bear arms" does not mean "own guns." It's an archaic military term meaning to wage war.

So as originally intended, the Second Amendment was never about private ownership of firearms. It was meant to establish the right of the states to maintain standing armed forces, something that was not commonplace in those days. (It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that it protected private gun ownership, and that ruling has been criticized by many jurists for overturning centuries of precedent.) So "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is fulfilled by the existence of "a well regulated militia," i.e. a permanent armed force of professional soldiers dedicated to the security of the state. At the time, that was envisioned as something like state National Guard units, but since then the US military has taken over that role. In the Federation, the people have a well-regulated, armed Starfleet to "bear arms" (wage war) when necessary to defend their security, and thus their "right to bear arms" is indeed fulfilled by its existence.

 

[Relayer1]

My question would be, why would they need to?

Which suggests the answer "For almost everyone, no".

Some people may need them for work or pest control, but only for personal protection on frontier worlds.

Own bias obviously showing - that's pretty much the British model.

 

[Brennyren]

I wouldn't be surprised if like today, it's down to individual states or whatever the future equivalent is.

Worlds, perhaps. Since the situation on different Federation planets will vary -- in terms of sociological makeup (some planets may have a higher crime rate), proximity to outside threats (border worlds), tradition (Andor and Vulcan probably have different sensibilities on this point, just as the US and UK do today), and threats from the actual environment or zoology of the planet (frontier worlds) -- it doesn't seem much of a stretch to assume they'd have different laws.

But then again, it's a world where Starfleet (who seem to be the police in the 24th century going by DS9) can beam in anywhere at 3 seconds notice.

Though there are some problems with that, too. I don't know if I'd want someone like Admiral Leighton -- or perhaps someone slightly less scrupulous than him, since he was ultimately talked down -- having the authority to beam enforcement officers directly into my bedroom.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Why would they ever need too? There is no crime, no war, whilst hunting is a barbaric activity that would've been outlawed centuries ago, there is no reason for anyone to own a weapon. Due to the destructive power of phasers, such things would be highly restricted. We see in DS9, when Ezri is hunting a murderer on the station, that a Starfleet crewman needed special authorisation to replicate a specialist weapon and was in trouble with security for not doing so--and that's a Starfleet officer on a military outpost.

 

[at Quark's]

Well... the modern understanding of the phrase "right to bear arms" is greatly distorted, due to shifts in language and deliberate propagandistic misinterpretations. The Second Amendment specifically says:
<etc>

A most illuminating post for a non-American like me, thank you.

Why would they ever need too?

There are countries today where citizens are fairly safe, violent crime is low (AFAIK) and where they still value a right to own guns highly.-- Switzerland for example. So need to wouldn't be necessarily the only component in that decision.

 

[uniderth]

Dr. Crater had a laser pistol. I think there were some other instances of civilian gun ownership in the Star Trek series.

So I think there is onscreen evidence for private weapon ownership. But I don't think we can categorically state this is universal.

Phasers have incredibly high energy yields and can be made to go BOOM quite easily. So the question would be, how to you best keep them out of the wrong hands?

But on the flip side, to quote McCoy (I think from TWOK directors edition):

"Would you like to tell me whose are the right hands?"

When it comes to weapons that are high yield I think that, in idealistic terms, nobody's hands are the right hands. But this butts up against "reality" where phasers can be built, "atomic" weapons are considered primitive, and photon torpedoes exist.

While total disarmament may be the idealistic dream, the pragmatic response is to develop defenses that nullify the advantages of high yield weaponry.

How do you stop a deranged psycho from wiping out a town with a fully charged phaser? How do you stop Federation police from taking people's property and lives, even if it's legal? How do you stop of rogue starship captain, or worse, one that's just following orders, from bombarding a planet's surface?

What that might look like, I don't know. I'm not sure we've seen anything like that in Star Trek.

Spoiler: Real World 2nd Amendment Response to Christopher

So as originally intended, the Second Amendment was never about private ownership of firearms. It was meant to establish the right of the states to maintain standing armed forces, something that was not commonplace in those days. (It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that it protected private gun ownership, and that ruling has been criticized by many jurists for overturning centuries of precedent.) So "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is fulfilled by the existence of "a well regulated militia," i.e. a permanent armed force of professional soldiers dedicated to the security of the state. At the time, that was envisioned as something like state National Guard units, but since then the US military has taken over that role. In the Federation, the people have a well-regulated, armed Starfleet to "bear arms" (wage war) when necessary to defend their security, and thus their "right to bear arms" is indeed fulfilled by its existence.

I have to admit my understanding of the history of the militia is a bit fuzzy. Though, it is my understanding that all able bodied men were considered part of the militia.

In today's terms, even if the second amendment didn't apply "individually," it would still apply to large swaths of the population. US law states that all able-bodied male citizens age 17-45 and female citizens who are part of the National Guard are considered the militia.

The militia is then divided into two types the organized and the unorganized militia. The organized militia is the National Guard and the unorganized militia is everyone else.

So the National Guard is PART of the militia but it is not THE militia.

If anyone reading this is an able-bodied, male, US citizen, age 17-45 and is wondering what the militia is, look in the mirror, it's you.

Which is why I don't think the idea that the second amendment only applies to "the militia" is a very solid one. Since ALOT of people are the militia and it's not just the state sanctioned National guard.

10 U.S. Code §246
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[BK613]

For those interested this is an interesting read.
I'm always found this footnote particularly interesting (and perhaps applicable to a Federation that is constantly exploring and expanding, with a permanent frontier):

Spoiler: footnot 46, page 215

46. From the earliest times the duty to possess arms was imposed on the entire colonial populace, with actual militia service contemplated for every male of 15, 16, or 18 through 45, 50, or 60 (depending on the colony). As noted in the REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, supra note IO, at 3 (footnotes omitted):

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were ''well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to "bring their peeces [sic] to Church." In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only free men, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stem 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.​

For examples of subsequent legislation to the same effect, see An Act for Regulating the Militia, 1741, reprinted in 8 COLONIAL RECORDS OF CONNECTICUT 379 (1874); Act for Regulating the Militia, 1693-1694, 1st sess., ch. 3, reprinted in l ACTS AND RESOLVES OF THE PROVINCE OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY 128 (1869); An Act for Settling the Militia, 1691, 1st sess., ch.5, reprinted in 1 THE COLONIAL LAWS OF NEW YORK FROM THE YEAR 1664 To THE REVOLUTION 231 (1894). Colonial practice is extensively summarized in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) ("[T]he term Militia [in the amendment] ... comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense ... [who] were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves •... ").

 

[Christopher]

A most illuminating post for a non-American like me, thank you.

It's not well-understood by Americans these days either.

Dr. Crater had a laser pistol. I think there were some other instances of civilian gun ownership in the Star Trek series.

So I think there is onscreen evidence for private weapon ownership.

Well, Crater was out on the frontier on an archaeological dig. One would assume that frontier expeditions have more reason to be armed than folks living on Earth or Vulcan. I mean, was it a privately owned weapon, or was it part of the expedition's supplies? Granted, the Craters seemed to be doing the whole thing themselves, but they might have been backed by a university or a research institute.

Phasers have incredibly high energy yields and can be made to go BOOM quite easily. So the question would be, how to you best keep them out of the wrong hands?

Automobiles can quite easily kill people too. But we allow private ownership and use of automobiles under certain reasonable standards: The owners must be licensed and regulated, trained in their safe and proper use, and held legally culpable for any harm they cause through negligent or malicious use. Also, the manufacturers ideally make every effort to improve their safety through design refinements and technological advances. A rational society would presumably regulate firearms in a similar way.

For instance, I'd imagine civilian phasers might have differences from Starfleet phasers, like being lower-powered, without a kill setting and without an easy means to overload them. Really, the ease with which a Starfleet phaser can be set to overload suggests that they're specifically designed to allow that as an option in combat situations. Otherwise you'd think there would be safeguards in place that would be difficult to overcome.

How do you stop a deranged psycho from wiping out a town with a fully charged phaser? How do you stop Federation police from taking people's property and lives, even if it's legal? How do you stop of rogue starship captain, or worse, one that's just following orders, from bombarding a planet's surface?

The thing is, these questions arise for more than just phasers. You know what's enormously more dangerous? Any spacecraft with an impulse engine. Even a mere shuttlecraft crashing into a planet at a high fraction of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy comparable to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. One drunk driver could cause an extinction-level event. For that matter, any warp-driven ship is an antimatter bomb waiting to go off. Stardrives are incredibly dangerous things, yet we've never seen any hint of restrictions on their private ownership and use. The fact that we don't see more accidental cataclysms suggests that most Federation citizens are really, really careful and responsible, and that the exceptions are identified early and prevented from gaining control of spacecraft (though things are probably looser out on the frontier where scoundrels like Harry Mudd operate). And that suggests there are similar safeguards in place where possession of less deadly things like hand weapons are concerned.

 

[BK613]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

First off, in formal usage, the phrase "the people" -- note the definite article -- does not refer to individual persons, but to the populace as a whole, the collective citizenry, as in "We the People of the United States." Second, "bear arms" does not mean "own guns." It's an archaic military term meaning to wage war.

It should be noted that the phrase "the right of the people" is used everywhere else in the Bill of Rights to guarantee individual rights....

 

[eschaton]

I would not be surprised if there's some sort of energy-dampening field which - under normal situations - just stops phasers from being used at a higher setting than stun on Earth and most of the core worlds. It seems like the sort of technobabble solution the Federation would work out.

Still, the standard Trek response to these things is unfortunately people just wouldn't feel the need for weapons because they have "evolved." Basically everything to do with human moral advancement is shown to be some voluntary process related to cultural evolution.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It's not well-understood by Americans these days either.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation.

I believe all citizenry of good standing (Not convicted of Violent Felony's of any sort and no Violent Misdemeanors) who are of legal age should have the right to bear arms. The moment you are convicted of said crime such as Murder, Assault, Treason, Sedition, Theft, etc, you get your rights stripped away until you are proven to have reformed. And proving that you have reformed is not an immediate process once you have left prison, it should be a VERY LONG time process that requires very frequent and constant observation that said person is reformed. (I'm talking about a decade worth of covert monitoring of said person) before their right to bear arms are restored. But other than that, every citizen should have the right to bear arms IMO.

How many times in Star Trek has "Random Crew Man" been kidnapped by Alien Force and subjugated to bad things? How many times have we heard of stories of people being kidnapped by aliens. Random stuff happens, and if them bearing arms is what they need to protect themselves from the randomness of life, so be it.

I would not be surprised if there's some sort of energy-dampening field which - under normal situations - just stops phasers from being used at a higher setting than stun on Earth and most of the core worlds. It seems like the sort of technobabble solution the Federation would work out.

Then you would resort to traditional kinetic arms that aren't Directed Energy Weapons.

Still, the standard Trek response to these things is unfortunately people just wouldn't feel the need for weapons because they have "evolved." Basically everything to do with human moral advancement is shown to be some voluntary process related to cultural evolution.

That's a personal choice that you can make whenever you feel like you need to be armed.

Automobiles can quite easily kill people too. But we allow private ownership and use of automobiles under certain reasonable standards: The owners must be licensed and regulated, trained in their safe and proper use, and held legally culpable for any harm they cause through negligent or malicious use. Also, the manufacturers ideally make every effort to improve their safety through design refinements and technological advances. A rational society would presumably regulate firearms in a similar way.

And we allow people who are of good standing to own FireArms after they get their background verified by the government. Learning basic safety for a FireArm is incredibly easy, there's not that much to teach, I can teach anybody in < 30 mins on the proper ways to handle ALL FireArms. Operating a AutoMobile is a far more complex piece of technology and requires far more training then learning how to shoot safely. Yes, anybody who owns a gun and/or uses one is AUTOMATICALLY legally culpable for any harm that might happen due to negligent or malicious use. The same standard is applied to anybody who intentional or accidentally harms any other person with any object, tool, tech, etc.

For instance, I'd imagine civilian phasers might have differences from Starfleet phasers, like being lower-powered, without a kill setting and without an easy means to overload them. Really, the ease with which a Starfleet phaser can be set to overload suggests that they're specifically designed to allow that as an option in combat situations. Otherwise you'd think there would be safeguards in place that would be difficult to overcome.

I'd imagine that civilian Phasers would not have the "OverLoad" setting enabled, other than that, they should be basically the same.